One thought that crossed my mind while reading about landscape is when people have conflicting views on what a particular landscape means. If one society sees a landscape as wealth when another society sees it as a place, there is a fundamental rift between these two societies. The example that comes to mind is the colonizing of America. The Europeans had a different way of viewing and interacting with the landscape which ended up in the decimation of Native American society and culture. As well as having different views about landscape, there is also a lack of empathy that pervades most all colonialism that is highly intertwined with landscape and place. The Europeans had no interest in seeing what the landscape meant to the natives and how they interacted with it.
However, as in the case of Hudson and other artists who depict landscapes, their unique takes on what a certain landscape means can bring about greater understanding of said landscape. As we talked about in class, Hudson engrosses himself in the landscape and seems to try to understand the landscape as the lobstermen do. However, as an artist, he brings his own experiences and meanings to his paintings. While he cannot truly understand what the landscape means to those lobstermen because he is not one, a mutual appreciation for the landscape would seem to bring a deeper and more sophisticated view of the landscape. Not more sophisticated because he is an artist and artists are perceived as more sophisticated, but because there is a dialogue between the two perspectives which results in deeper connection and perceived understanding.